Share this:

Award Ceremony Speech

The great work on Western philosophy which
Bertrand Russell brought out in 1946, that is, at the age of
seventy-four, contains numerous characteristic reflections giving
us an idea of how he himself might like us to regard his long and
arduous life. In one place, speaking of the pre-Socratic
philosophers, he says, «In studying a philosopher, the right
attitude is neither reverence nor contempt, but first a kind of
hypothetical sympathy, until it is possible to know what it feels
like to believe in his theories, and only then a revival of the
critical attitude, which should resemble, as far as possible, the
state of mind of a person abandoning opinions which he has
hitherto held.»

And in another place in the same work he writes, «It is not
good either to forget the questions that philosophy asks, or to
persuade ourselves that we have found indubitable answers to
them. To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without
being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that
philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study
it.»

With his superior intellect, Russell has, throughout half a
century, been at the centre of public debate, watchful and always
ready for battle, as active as ever to this very day, having
behind him a life of writing of most imposing scope. His works in
the sciences concerned with human knowledge and mathematical
logic are epoch-making and have been compared to Newton's
fundamental results in mechanics. Yet it is not these
achievements in special branches of science that the Nobel Prize
is primarily meant to recognize. What is important, from our
point of view, is that Russell has so extensively addressed his
books to a public of laymen, and, in doing so, has been so
eminently successful in keeping alive the interest in general
philosophy.

His whole life's work is a stimulating defence of the reality of
common sense. As a philosopher he pursues the line from the
classical English empiricism, from Locke and Hume. His attitude
toward the idealistic dogmas is a most independent one and quite
frequently one of opposition. The great philosophical systems
evolved on the Continent he regards, so to speak, from the
chilly, windswept, and distinctive perspective of the English
Channel. With his keen and sound good sense, his clear style, and
his wit in the midst of seriousness, he has in his work evinced
those characteristics which are found among only the elite of
authors. Time does not permit even the briefest survey of his
works in this area, which are fascinating also from a purely
literary point of view. It may suffice to mention such books as
the History of Western Philosophy (1946), Human
Knowledge (1948), Sceptical Essays (1948), and the
sketch «My Mental Development» (in The Philosophy of
Bertrand Russell, 1951); but to these should be added a great
number of equally important books on practically all the problems
which the present development of society involves.

Russell's views and opinions have been influenced by varied
factors and cannot easily be summarized. His famous family
typifies the Whig tradition in English politics. His grandfather
was the Victorian statesman, John Russell. Familiar from an early
age with the ideas of Liberalism, he was soon confronted by the
problems of rising socialism and since then he has, as an
independent critic, weighed the advantages and disadvantages of
this form of society. He has consistently and earnestly warned us
of the dangers of the new bureaucracy. He has defended the right
of the individual against collectivism, and he views industrial
civilization as a growing threat to humanity's chances of simple
happiness and joy in living. After his visit to the Soviet Union
in 1920 he strongly and resolutely opposed himself to Communism.
On the other hand, during a subsequent journey in China, he was
very much attracted by the calm and peaceable frame of mind of
China's cultivated classes and recommended it as an example to a
West ravaged by wild aggression.

Much in Russell's writings excites protest. Unlike many other
philosophers, he regards this as one of the natural and urgent
tasks of an author. Of course, his rationalism does not solve all
troublesome problems and cannot be used as a panacea, even if the
philosopher willingly writes out the prescription. Unfortunately,
there are - and obviously always will be - obscure forces which
evade intellectual analysis and refuse to submit to control.
Thus, even if Russell's work has, from a purely practical point
of view, met with but little success in an age which has seen two
world wars - even if it may look as if, in the main, his ideas
have been bitterly repudiated - we must nevertheless admire the
unwavering valour of this rebellious teller of the truth and the
sort of dry, fiery strength and gay buoyancy with which he
presents his convictions, which are never dictated by opportunism
but are often directly unpopular. To read the philosopher Russell
often gives very much the same pleasure as to listen to the
outspoken hero in a Shaw comedy,
when in loud and cheerful tones he throws out his bold retorts
and keen arguments.

In conclusion, Russell's philosophy may be said in the best sense
to fulfil just those desires and intentions that Alfred Nobel had
in mind when he instituted his Prizes. There are quite striking
similarities between their outlooks on life. Both of them are at
the same time sceptics and utopians, both take a gloomy view of
the contemporary world, yet both hold fast to a belief in the
possibility of achieving logical standards for human behaviour.
The Swedish Academy believes that it acts in the spirit of
Nobel's intention when, on the occasion of the fiftieth
anniversary of the Foundation, it wishes to honour Bertrand
Russell as one of our time's brilliant spokesmen of rationality
and humanity, as a fearless champion of free speech and free
thought in the West.

My lord - Exactly two hundred years ago Jean Jacques Rousseau was
awarded the prize offered by the Academy of Dijon
for his famous answer to the question of «whether the arts
and sciences have contributed to improve morals.» Rousseau
answered «No», and this answer - which may not have
been a very serious one - in any case had most serious
consequences. The Academy of Dijon had no revolutionary aims.
This is true also of the Swedish Academy, which has now chosen to
reward you for your philosophical works just because they are
undoubtedly of service to moral civilization and, in addition,
most eminently answer to the spirit of Nobel's intentions. We
honour you as a brilliant champion of humanity and free thought,
and it is a pleasure for us to see you here on the occasion of
the fiftieth anniversary of the Nobel Foundation. With these
words I request you to receive from the hands of His Majesty the
King the Nobel Prize in Literature for 1950.

At the banquet, Robin Fåhraeus, Member
of the Royal Academy
of Sciences, made the following comment: «Dear Professor
Bertrand Russell - We salute you as one of the greatest and most
influential thinkers of our age, endowed with just those four
characteristics which on another occasion you have regarded to be
the criteria of prominent fellow men; namely, vitality, courage,
receptivity, and intelligence.»